I understand that he cannot be forced to perform a marriage, just as a doctor can opt-out of any particular procedure if he or she is uncomfortable with it, or a lawyer can refuse service. They just can’t make that decision based on race.

The law forbids discrimination based on race. It is silent on discrimination based on t-shirt color.

According to wikipedia (I’m not an expert on this, which is why I was asking a question, so forgive the mediocre source): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Discrimination_Act_1975

“It is against the law to discriminate in areas such as:
…
Provision of goods and services (section 13) – eg when buying something, applying for credit, using banks, seeking assistance from government departments, lawyers, doctors and hospitals, or attending restaurants, pubs, entertainment venues;”

Not to mention that nowhere in his job description does it say he must perform marriages or must issue marriage licenses to all eligible individuals.

He could – at his own discretion – decide not to perform marriages to individuals who wear red shirts. (which isn’t nearly as fancy and flashy to the news as a possible racist allegation) – and he’d be within his legal limits.

As such a lawsuit would go absolutely nowhere.

But, if you insist, I’ll come up with a different example. Can a doctor by sued for refusing to perform a live-donor organ transplant between two family members of different races. Or can a lawyer be sued for refusing his or her services to two people that wish to engage in some contract because the two people are of different races. Of course, the parties in question are free to find a different doctor or a different lawyer. But, that doesn’t answer the question: do they have legitimate grounds to sue?

this JP has performed many marriages to black couples in his own home. Your analogy cannot possibly be close to accurate unless you think the person has one black leg and one white leg.

Are you responding to me? He has said no to a black man wanting to marry a white woman. If the man had been white, he would have performed the marriage. Or if the woman was black, he would have performed the marriage. Even if he is not racist, his policy discriminates based on race. My question is if a doctor can be sued for refusing service based on race, can a JP be sued for the same reason?

A more appropriate analogy would be the doctor refusing to perform an abortion on individuals who are age 20 to 25.

“The claim that he HAD to agree to be the officiant is roughly analogous to saying that someone seeking an abortion can DEMAND their doctor of choice even if the doctor is not willing to do the procedure.”

A doctor can refuse to perform a medical procedure. But if he or she refuses to do it because the woman is black, is that legitimate grounds for a law suit?

While JP’s in LA have the authority to act as marriage officiants, marital law does NOT fall under the jurisdiction of JP’s in LA and is NOT part of their official duties. The statutory language employed in defining the officiant authority (LA RS 9:201-204) is clearly and consistently “may,” not “shall,” as relates to said authority for ALL authorized officiants, including JP’s and clergy. There is indeed a distinction between duty and authority. A JP has the authority to act as an officiant, but no duty to so act, just as with clergy.

I think he’s an old-school old-fart “genteel” bigot, myself. Was raised that way and thinks he’s enlightened by the standards of his upbringing. (If he’s 70-ish he may be right about that, but it’s a low hurdle.) But he didn’t (couldn’t!) prevent them from getting married, only decline to be the officiant himself. NO ONE denied the couple the right and freedom to marry. Indeed, the JP even referred them to another JP who WOULD officiate for them, thereby both facilitating the union and negating any alleged harm, while simply and clearly recusing himself from doing it himself on grounds of personal conscience. However troglodytical we may find the basis of his conscientious objection, that’s exactly what it was, a conscientious objection on the JP’s part, for which he recused himself from being the agent of solemnization.

There is NO right on the part of the couple to demand that a particular authorized officiant be THEIR officiant when said officiant does not want to be. (Nor IMHO do I think there should be, nor IMHO should any couple want an officiant that personally objects to their union for any reason.)

Doesn’t mean the JP can’t be sued, of course. Anyone can sue anyone for anything, and given the right judge and jury, even win. Pettifoggers abound, as do the perpetually disgruntled.

And no, Lawyer Lisa, Loving is not the “real argument” here. “The state” did not deny the couple the right to marry. An officiant declined to personally solemnize the union, and that’s all. The claim that he HAD to agree to be the officiant is roughly analogous to saying that someone seeking an abortion can DEMAND their doctor of choice even if the doctor is not willing to do the procedure.